North Carolina Attorney General Refuses to Defend Law Overturning Charlotte ‘Bathroom Bill’

RALEIGH, N.C. — The attorney general of North Carolina has announced that he will not defend a recently signed law that overturned a controversial “bathroom bill” in Charlotte and banned other cities from passing similar ordinances.

Roy Cooper called the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act a “national embarrassment” on Tuesday during a press conference in which he announced his decision not to defend the law in court following a legal challenge from the ACLU and two transgender advocacy organizations.

“We are here because the governor has signed statewide legislation that puts discrimination into the law,” said. “This is a unique and different situation, and as attorney general there are often times situations where you have to make choices with different agencies that are conflicted. Here, this is the right choice.”

The bill then passed the Senate 32-0 after Democrats walked out in protest as they believed that they were being left out of the participation process.

“Public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex,” the legislation reads in part. “Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex.”

The Act had been presented after the Charlotte City Council voted 7-4 last month to expand the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to add provisions for homosexuals and those who identify as the opposite sex—including in regard to restroom and locker room use.

Over 21,000 area residents had signed a petition in opposition of the proposed expansion, and pastors, community leaders and others part of a coalition opposed to the changes known as “Don’t Do It Charlotte” also rallied outside prior to the meeting. The overwhelming concern was in regard to allowing men to use women’s restrooms or locker rooms and vice versa if they identified as as the opposite gender.

Gov. Pat McCrory promptly signed the Public Facilities Act into law on the same day of its passage, and later released a fact sheet to clarify what he believed were misunderstandings about the content of the ordinance.

“Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies,” it reads in part. “[I]f a privately-owned sporting facility wants to allow attendees of sporting events to use the restroom of their choice, or install unisex bathrooms, they can. The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.”

“This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate,” the fact sheet also advises.

On Monday, the ACLU, Equality North Carolina and Lamba Legal filed suit against McCrory and others on behalf of two transgendered residents, Joaquín Carcaño and Payton Grey McGarry, as well as and Angela Gilmore, a lesbian employed at North Carolina Central University.

Now, Cooper says he won’t defend the law since he personally disagrees with it.

“Not only is this new law a national embarrassment, it will set North Carolina’s economy back if we don’t repeal it,” he said. “The threats to our economy will grow even darker the longer this law stays in effect.”

“[W]e shouldn’t have to be dealing with these lawsuits in the first place,” Cooper continued. “A shameful new law has brought them upon us. Discrimination is wrong, period. The governor and the legislature should repeal this new law.”

On Tuesday, McCrory criticized Cooper of “inventing conflict that simply doesn’t exist” and asserted that Cooper is not permitted to circumvent his duties as attorney general.

“I’m standing up to the attorney general of North Carolina who today refused to fulfill his oath of office to defend the people of North Carolina in a lawsuit filed over the privacy of our restrooms,” he said.

“As the state’s attorney, he can’t select which laws he will defend and which laws are politically expedient to refuse to defend,” McCrory declared. “When you are the state’s lawyer, you are a lawyer first and a politician second. Therefore, I encourage the attorney general to reconsider his flawed logic.”

“It is just common sense that men should not go into the women’s restrooms,” Tami Fitzgerald, the executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, told reporters. “It’s ridiculous to have such an uproar.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work?Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

Amos Moses

It is time for Christians and all people of conscience to say, “Enough is enough with your bullying. We are not going to bow down to your threats. We will do what is right, regardless of cost or consequence, and in the end, we will be vindicated for taking a stand.” – Michael Brown

Craig Martin

They are correct. If a person has a sexual identity issue they need to put the burden on the 5 year old girl. She has to learn to not discriminate just put up with men in the bathroom with her. Don’t worry Mr AG, you can count on the little girls to support you infringement on their privacy and rights. We would not dare ask those with sexual identity issues to bare the burden of their choices in life. NO… put it on the little girls. They are better able to deal with the problems that belong to the grown men.
Brilliant. Don’t you love the way the PC religion is upside down and inside out? I guess the little girls should be glad the mothers did not abort them because of their inability to control their sexual issues. In the end it is just better to balance our sexual and identity issues on the backs of the children. They are much more mature and able to deal with these adult problems than the adults that actually own those problems.
What a sick and self centered culture…

gizmo23

The most dangerous place for 5 year old girls is with their older family male members. That’s where most get molested

Craig Martin

Who said anything about molestation? I am just talking about privacy. Interesting that you chose to bring that up thought. Did you have something in mind?

Slidellman4life

He has nothing, which is why he is trolling.

gizmo23

Talk to me about me

Weasel1886

Boring subject

gizmo23

You never have privacy in a public restroom unless it is one where you can lock the main door

Slidellman4life

Which means what?

gizmo23

It means you need to flag me

Slidellman4life

Non-sequitur.

gogo0

and all the ‘man in a dress’ talk is a strawman. dont get all high and mighty with an argument you made up out of thin air

Slidellman4life

ROTFL You have no idea what you are talking about.

gizmo23

Is that all the words you know?

Slidellman4life

Your comment is irrelevant and unproven.

Since this isn’t the first time you have posted comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, I have to assume you are merely trolling. Instead of responding, I will merely flag you from this point on.

gizmo23

Go right ahead

Craig Martin

I suppose there would be less of a chance that the little girl get bitten by a snake or eaten by a bear in the rest room. So by your logic we should allow bears and snakes into the restrooms.
I think most women would object.. little girls too.
More bad logic from the rationalizing left.

gizmo23

I guess we could pass a law against snakes and bears and that would for sure stop them.

Craig Martin

The thing is giz we should not have to. Common sense tells us there should not be snakes, bears, or men in the ladies room..
It is the LADIES room.
Not the bears room.
Not the snakes room.
Not the men’s room. We (men) have our own room… it is called, and it is not hard to understand – the MENS room.

gizmo23

Then you will need to check everyone going in.

BarkingDawg

And you have your special room called the “LIITLE BOY’S” room.

Mike Stark

What else could you possibly say about somebody that would cause that? Seriously?

Becky

You know what’s brilliant? Your comment ; )

Jolanda Tiellemans

So you let your 5 year old go to the public restroom by herself?

Mike Stark

5 year old girls don’t know how to discriminate you redneck. It’s only when other rednecks teach them to discriminate is when they learn.

Diaris

Flagged.
Go learn some basic courtesy.

Craig Martin

It is funny. These people want us to come to the place where we trust them in the restroom with our daughters… so they attempt to do this by attacking us, calling us names, being generally hateful and mean. By definition…. it indicates exactly who is the bully/redneck nature in the conversation.
“Redneck is as redneck does…”
We are trying to have a civilization here!

Another one:
“If one will have friends, he must show himself friendly…”

Nicole

They won’t. They tag themselves as “victims,” they think that gives them the right to verbally abuse anyone who isn’t gung-ho for their agenda. To them, Christians are not even human beings.

Mike Stark

Redneck

SSGT_Randolph

I applaud the Attorney General for taking a courageous stand against this unconstitutional bill, the sole purpose of which is legalized discrimination based on hatred and bigotry toward the gay community.

Slidellman4life

I see. An eight-year-old girl has to forfeit her own right to safety and privacy to a man in a dress because trying to protect that girl is unconstitutional.

Do you have any idea how asinine that sounds?

Craig Martin

It sounds exactly right. Little children are being asked to foot the bill for grown men who cannot decide what they are. Grown men made a choice in life and now the expect everyone to bow down and pay for the choice they made. It is perverted and upside down logic. Astounding.

Guest

So this child will feel different when the trans male comes in with a full beard. dungarees, big biceps and tatts because they haven’t had some sort of surgery?

The ‘think of the children’ issues is so tired; the child will ask, the parent will explain and the child will say “Oh, okay” and that will be it.

hytre64

Sorry, but how would *ANY* teen-age girl feel about a male coming into their bathroom/locker room – regardless of if they are in a dress or dungarees. There is a reason that bathrooms are segregated by which sexual organs a person possesses. Having a male (one who has the sexual organs of a male, regarless of any delusions) in such a space is extremely threatening to young ladies who are going to the bathroom, changing clothes, showering, etc. There is no excuse for *his* delusions to infringe on *her* privacy.

Guest

And what about someone who possess both? Neither? Are you saying your sex is determined by your genitalia? How will someone in a public restroom be able to tell what the genitalia of a man with a beard is? The law says that the trans male will have to use the ladies restroom, they very well will look more masculine than the cis guys in the mens restroom.

And privacy? What does that mean – they can require everyone around them to be a certain way? Its a public space – how is there any privacy expectation at all?

Again, no child will be upset unless they have been taught to be upset.

Slidellman4life

The question of having both or neither is so rare it’s irrelevant and they don’t exist respectively. Your argument is invalid.

Guest

bisexual and asexual? more the plurality

Slidellman4life

Relevance? Logic? Something other than a non-sequitur?

Craig Martin

Ok now hytre64. Stop making sense. It will scare the opposition away. You are correct. Why is the burden on the women and the little girls? Why not the grown man deal with his own issues?

SOMEONE is going to be uncomfortable here:
* Either the women and girls uncomfortable about the man in a dress in the women’s room. OR
* The guy in a dress in the men’s room getting perplexed looks from the other men.

Which one should not be forced to be uncomfortable?
I say the women and little girl should be let off the hook for the man’s identity problem.

hytre64

The other one that is scary to me as a male, is to be in the locker room and have a female come in… I would get out of there ASAP – who knows what she would say happened!

Slidellman4life

It’s not tired to the parent who doesn’t want a man in the bathroom with his child.

You realize you are only proving my point, right?

Guest

yes you have, it’s just like the people that didn’t want a minority in the same bathroom as their white child. Or the people who worried about what that Samaritan would do in the bathroom with their child.

I mean who would ever trust a Samaritan?

Yes, you have proven my point, both individually and as an example of a particular kind of Christianity rearing its head in these days.

Slidellman4life

Mason’s Second Law, again.

Guest

you seem to think that’s something of significance. Civil rights categories, your bringing up that two are being compared means nothing.

Actually Christ never chastised sinners other than hypocritical religious leaders. We are supposed to repeat sin in ourselves and members of our church, the sins of those of this world are not our concern, they’re Gods . 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Our job is to love and forgive others regardless of their sins.

Slidellman4life

Actually Christ never chastised sinners other than hypocritical religious leaders.

John Chapter 4. Read it.

Our job is to love and forgive others regardless of their sins.

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. (Ezekiel 3:18 KJV)

And Jesus never said we should tolerate sin. But you would know that if you actually read the Bible.

Guest

John 4 no chastisement of sinners, got it.

Not a quote of Christ, Old Covenant, got it.

Slidellman4life

John 4 no chastisement of sinners, got it.

Jesus called the woman at the well out for living with someone who was not her husband. Which you would have known if you read it.

Not a quote of Christ,

Does not have to be.

Old Covenant, got it.

Not Old Covenant. The Old Covenant refers to the Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament.

Your ignorance of the Bible keeps showing through.

Guest

And mentioning it is chastising how?

The old Covenant is everything pertaining to the Jewish people before the New Covenant was forged. And Christ didn’t say it.

Paige Turner

They’re not very bright.

hytre64

It is not the job of the AG to determine if a LAW is unconstitutional or not. That is the job of the courts. By refusing to perform his job, he is attempting to circumvent our political system.

The Skeptical Chymist

Nowhere in the article did I see that the AG is refusing to enforce the law. He said that he would not defend it in court, which is different.

hytre64

Part of the AG’s job IS to defend the law. This would be equivalent to a private lawyer being hired to defend a client, and then showing up in court saying that they will provide no defense.

Josey

This attorney general is only thinking about money and politics, he should move to hollywood where he’ll be praised for his greed and upside down thinking by the left wing pc crowd. Good-bye Coop, N.C. will be better off in your absence.

Reason2012

Ray Cooper needs to be removed from office – he is claiming he has more authority than the senate and We The People. But because the justice system is all but taken over by anti-America criminals, illegal behavior like this goes unpunished. Contact your representatives over this illegal action by Mr. Cooper.

Michael C

It’s now perfectly legal for a company to fire an employee just because they’re gay in all of North Carolina.
It’s now perfectly legal for a restaurant to refuse service to a customer just because they’re gay in all of North Carolina.
It’s now perfectly legal for an apartment complex to refuse to rent an apartment to a person just because they’re gay in all of North Carolina.

All of this talk about bathrooms is just a diversion to hide the fact that North Carolina just enshrined into law the practice of discrimination against gay and transgender citizens in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations as being perfectly acceptable.

Slidellman4life

And what are the plaintiffs talking about? I read the initial statement from the two women pretending to be men and they never mentioned any part of it other than the trans part.

You are being disingenuous.

Michael C

Being that the federal government does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, I don’t know that they have a case to argue concerning the removal of protections in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

There exists precedent in federal courts deeming discrimination on the basis of gender identity to actually be discrimination on the basis of sex. This is the route the lawyers have seem to have taken.

I stand by my original comment.

If this was just about bathrooms, the legislation would’ve only addressed bathrooms.

…notice how every article about this topic centers around the subject of bathrooms? North Carolina legislators were successful in sneakily removing protections that the majority of U.S. citizens favor by dressing this legislation up like a scary cross-dresser.

Slidellman4life

There exists precedent in federal courts deeming discrimination on the basis of gender identity to actually be discrimination on the basis of sex.

The precedent is pointless as it has been shown to be perfectly legal in cases across the country, with Houston getting the most press before now.

There is a man in Canada who, at 53, says he is not only a female, but he is also six years old.

Now, reasonable people look at this and say, this guy needs to be in a mental institution, as he is obviously insane. However, there are others who think he should be embraced, accepted and encouraged. These people also have no place in public, as they are just as insane as he, if not more so.

I am saying this because I am as certain as the day is long if there was such a person in the USA instead of Canada there would be people behaving exactly as they are now, defending the mentally ill as if they have more rights than others.

Michael C

No existing protections were removed in Houston.

I don’t know how much of a case they have in NC. It will be an interesting case to pay attention to.

My bologna has a first name…
No read the law. It does not allow for discrimination.

Michael C

It’s not that confusing.

Part III

It negates any non-discrimination ordinance protecting gay and trans citizens enacted at the local level.

The law not only allows discrimination against gay people, it nullifies any local law enacted to protect gay people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

There’s a link to the legislation right in this article.

Ambulance Chaser

I have to disagree with Roy Cooper. I hate this law. I hate every provision of it. I wish it were never enacted, and I hope it gets overturned as soon as possible.

But until that happens, it is the law and he has to enforce it.

Michael C

The law has to be enforced but the AG is not required to defend it in court.

John_33

What ever happened to the “do your job” mantra that was issued against Kim Davis? Somehow it’s a different story when it’s for LGBT causes.

Slidellman4life

The irony is stunning, don’t you think?

Michael C

Well, Attorneys General sometimes refuse to defend laws that they deem indefensible. This is not a new concept. This type of thing has occurred over both “liberal” and “conservative” issues.

Attorneys General are neither required nor obligated by law to defend any and every law.

All agents of the state are, however, required to abide by and enforce existing laws.

The AG is in no way inhibiting the enforcement of a law by refusing to defend it in court.

County Clerks, like AGs, are required to abide by and enforce existing laws. For County Clerks, this means that they are required to be responsible for legal paperwork. This is their job. Whether or not they agree with the law, they are required to ensure that it is upheld (just like AGs).

John_33

So AG’s can pick and choose whichever laws they want to defend?

gizmo23

Would you want an attorney to represent you that didn’t believe in you ? AG do this all the time

Michael C

While it is controversial, the precedent exists.

On the federal level, this precedent includes instances within both Bush administrations and the Reagan administration.

John_33

So defending the law is not part of the job of the AG?

Michael C

like I said, it’s a controversial action for an AG to refuse to defend a law but it’s apparently not been deemed to be directly counter to their obligations.

John_33

My point is not about legal precedent; my point was that the “do your job” argument is not being equally applied.

SSGT_Randolph

Just as boycotts are only okay when they’re for fundamentalist Christian causes.

Craig Martin

Thank you. Again, we will wait to see if he is jailed for not doing his job. Since liberals have no absolute moral grounding, they will rationalize everything they do. It will be OK to send Kim Davis to Jail, but not this AG.
No conscience. No sense of decency. No sense modesty. No problem going into a bathroom with a little girl or women for that matter. Just rationalize all the common sense obvious reasons away, and blame everyone else for their problems. Hurt anyone you want, blame them for it, and rationalize it away with few trite and meaningless comments.Just like you will this one. It is all about you and your issues that everyone else has to bow down to and give you your way. No-one exists in the world but you. No-one has feelings but you and yours are most important. Nobody has rights but you and yours overrule everyone elses. Let the little girl bare the burden of your problem and rationalize it away. Selfishness in the real problem. The rest is just symptoms.

Michael C

Since liberals have no absolute moral grounding, they will rationalize everything they do.

AGs in the Reagan and both Bush administrations refused to defend certain laws.

This isn’t a new thing and it’s not something that is specific to one party.

Craig Martin

This we agree on Michael. It is true about all secular ideologies. None of them have any moral grounding. This is how holocausts and pogroms happen. It is ok to choke the fat black guy to death for selling cigs. Drag the gay guy behind a pickup truck in the name of decency. NO… It is all very troubling. But I still do not see sending the guy into a rest room with the little girl…. I wish you well.

Ambulance Chaser

I guess I don’t see the difference.

Michael C

I’m sure smarter people would be able to justify it.

I’m not all legally and stuff.

This isn’t, by any stretch, the first time an AG has refused to defend a law.

Jolanda Tiellemans

I wrote this in another thread a couple days ago. I’ve traveled, seen a lot of public restrooms, only go to those who have a cleaning lady/man, and never seen a man walking into a womans restroom. Well if I was a guy I wouldn’t too, seen the lines by some of those woman restrooms? A woman walking into a mans restroom on the other hand, a specially when that line by the womans restroom is very long, yep have seen that a couple times;

gogo0

but women arent rapists like all men, so that isnt part of the imaginary ‘man in a dress’ scare story

gizmo23

All men are rapists?

gogo0

i should have tagged my above comment as sarcastic, but I have to assume that only men being dangerous is their implication.
all of their strawmen are about men being in the women’s room, and questions about female-to-male trans in the men’s room go ignored.

gizmo23

I agree and understand what you are saying

hytre64

As a male, if a female walked into the restroom/locker room, I would (A) politely let her know that she is in the wrong room, and (B) get the heck out of there ASAP if she doesn’t leave, as who can tell what story that woman might make up about what I did to her in the locker room.

hytre64

Those few times I have seen a woman walk into the men’s restroom, their husband/big brother makes sure that the room is clear first, and then stands at the door preventing other males from entering until the woman comes back out.

John_33

Sadly, this is more of an issue of the electoral process than anything else. The attorney general is running against the governor in 2016, and thus, the attorney general wants to make this an election issue.

Fearl that Conservative Republican in the stall next to you… Not the transgendered

Slidellman4life

Non-sequitur.

gizmo23

Another deep response

Slidellman4life

Shut up, troll. You are expected to make reasonable, rational comments that have something to do with the topic. Anything else is a non-sequitur.

gizmo23

non-sequitur. Stay on topic

Slidellman4life

There is a man in Canada who, at 53, says he is not only a female, but he is also six years old.

Now, reasonable people look at this and say, this guy needs to be in a mental institution, as he is obviously insane. However, there are others who think he should be embraced, accepted and encouraged. These people also have no place in public, as they are just as insane as he, if not more so.

I am saying this because I am as certain as the day is long if there was such a person in the USA instead of Canada there would be people behaving exactly as they are now, defending the mentally ill as if they have more rights than others.

Jalapeno

We can show that he is wrong about his claim. He is obviously not 6.

Can we prove, though, that a transgendered man does not have the brain of a man?

So..the two situations aren’t really comparable.

Slidellman4life

Do you have a point?

Carlos M

Do you even need to ask?

Jalapeno

It wasn’t exactly thinly veiled or confusing.

You cannot compare someone who thinks they are six to a transgendered person.

Slidellman4life

The guy thinks he is a six-year-old girl. That is the difference and it is 100% relevant.

Jalapeno

You tried to compare it to transgender people, and it’s not a valid comparison.

Slidellman4life

I did because he is transgendered.

Jalapeno

The age issue makes it not the same thing though. There is an actual delusion involved.

Slidellman4life

As it is with all transgendered people.

Jalapeno

You can prove that he’s not six.

Can you prove that he doesn’t have the brain of a woman?

Slidellman4life

Yep. I can do it with nine words:

He does not have the brain of a woman.

Jalapeno

I said prove, not state.

Slidellman4life

That is all the proof needed. God does not make mistakes. If He meant for you to be a woman, you would be born one. It’s just that simple.

Jalapeno

So.. No proof. Got it.

Slidellman4life

God is my proof. What do you have?

Jalapeno

No..that’s not proof.

That’s “it’s how it is because of how it is”.

Did you know that you can’t treat a person with gender dysphoria the same way you can treat people with delusional disorders?

Craig Martin

This may be a little off topic… but not too far.
Last year a white women decided that she was actually a black. Why not trans-race? Why did the liberal left get all up in arms about her “enlightened” view? If it is ok to be transgender than what is wrong with being trans-race?
Seems the left cannot get their ducks in a row. Please settle in on your theories and ideology and then get back to us about what is right and wrong… until then you sound very confused.

Mike Stark

You people are disgusting! Keep discriminating and you just might be next.

BarkingDawg

I’m sure s bunch of people will throw their money away on defending it.

Paige Turner

If they do, it’s no business of yours.
You liberals sure love to meddle.

BarkingDawg

The men who fought in the American Revolution were liberals who meddled in the affairs of the King.

BarkingDawg

In Jesus’s time, there were mixed gender public toilets and mixed gender public baths.

Craig Martin

You do realize you are not helping your cause with all these rude, obscene, and hate-filled comments. All it does is reinforce our resolve to NOT let someone with reprobate minds such as yours into the restroom with our daughters. If you are trying to win someone over to your cause and lessen their fears…. do not throw bombs at them.

Gena B

Male bathrooms, female bathrooms and unisex bathrooms, what is so hard? In my city they have the third bathroom labeled as unisex/family, (single use). For those who don’t want any identity and Moms who have multiple kids they have tagging along so one of them can use the bathroom. Everyone seems okay with it.

Get Breaking Christian News in Your Inbox!

Sign Me Up! Top Daily Top Weekly

Christian News Headlines

Keep your site fresh and your visitors coming back by featuring Christian News Network's top news stories on your site. Learn more →

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →